On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:56 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote: > >>> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to > >>> switch of bounce/ndr messages. > > >> Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp... > > > So does the notion of 'Before Queue Filtering'. I think it goes > > something like 'You must decide to accept or reject a message before the > > DATA command'. > > > > Are we *selective* in the parts of the SMTP RFC's we adhear to? > > Nope, just able to read... > > http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html > Me to. RFC821, in particular;
"The DATA command should fail only if the mail transaction was incomplete (for example, no recipients), or if resources are not available." So as far as I can see rejecting mail after the data command is munging the RFC's to provide a feature with the MTA. So why is there a problem in providing a feature to turn of Postscatter in the event of an admin making a minor balls up in using a feature that already munges the protocol in any case? As for the strict envelopes - providing the ability to turn of parts of the RFC Envelope is also providing a feature for the MTA. It's selecting parts of the RFC by desire. It's a pretty good feature and makes sense. Much like being able to turn *off* Postscatter. As far as the header/body content checks go - not being able to white list or exempt from those is really retarded. That said, these too are RFC breakers really. It's hard to scan the body before the DATA is given so 'REJECT' in a body check would be RFC breaking; "The DATA command should fail only if the mail transaction was incomplete (for example, no recipients), or if resources are not available." Let's just check: No recipients - no, we don't accept mail for invalid recipients or we start Postscattering Resources not available - no. We had plenty of resources to scan the message, we have space on the disc. We don't want it because of the content. That means we are not adhearing to the RFC's. So we **ARE** being selective about how we apply them. I'm sorry to bring it up. Perhaps I don't read as well as you do. I'm sorry we don't agree. We have different opinions. It's a war nobody will ever win. To me, if you can selectively mung some parts of the protocol to suit, you can't really jump up and down when other people ask for other things to be munged.
